Comments

Amnesia I just keep hearing from women that men think with their penises all the time and and men can be potential date rapists. For that reason many women won’t walk alone at night. Most rapes are allegedly committed by men as some feminists state.

I just keep hearing the same from (some) men, especially when they’re playing the “She should’ve known better” blame-the-victim game.

@Thomas Sooo… talking about romantically unsuccessful men is off limits when talking about romantic situations? Fascinating!

First, she never mentioned that these trolls were ugly, so that ‘double standard’ falls down flat. She also never called them gay (that would have been bad, but she didn’t do it). If she had said that EG was a ugly wimp that would never get sex, that would have been bad. If she said all the trolls were ugly or gay, that would have been bad. But if we’re talking about personality, and how you react to advice from a woman about how to approach women, how is it a double standard to say someone who reacts violently to such a thing is not going to be good on the dating scene?

Lets say some man said “I don’t like being approached by women in bars in the early morning, it makes me uncomfortable”, do you think he would be yelled at by feminists for being a wimp, and told that he would never find a woman? Because that would analogous situation, and a sign of a double standard. I have also never seen it happen.

Sooo… talking about romantically unsuccessful men is off limits when talking about romantic situations? Fascinating!

Hypothetical situation. I disagree with feminists in a discussion on something slightly related to romance. In reaction to that I tell the female feminists: “If you ever want to get laid, shave your armpits, lose 30 pounds and put some make-up on. Or you could just buy a horde of cats.”

Am I giving dating advice in good faith? After all, my tips are generally good and I’m a man and know what men want. Or am I creating a huge straw-man to silence the feminists? There is a lot of cultural pressure on women to look pretty and many are insecure about their looks. All I have to do is using this cultural pressure to shame them and hopefully they will stop disagreeing with me or at least shut up.

Do you understand the analogy? It can’t be transferred one to one, but the idea is the same. There is cultural pressure on men to be romantically successful and guys who use sex dolls are widely disdained. She says everyone who disagrees with her is abnormal and has no other option than masturbation with sex toys.

But if we’re talking about personality, and how you react to advice from a woman about how to approach women, how is it a double standard to say someone who reacts violently to such a thing is not going to be good on the dating scene?

No. She did not only address misogynistic trolls with her statement. She did address everyone who disagrees with her. It’s a classic shaming tactic and also a straw man, because a lot of the discussion was actually not about approaching women in spite of what she said in the video.

Thomas, given that shit that people were saying about her, Watson’s response was remarkably civil.

And her remarks were not analogous to your “shave your armpits” hypothetical. She wasn’t demanding that men change their appearance to please her; she was asking them to change a specific behavior, and not to approach women in places where women tend to feel vulnerable.

She was also saying that if some men are completely unwilling to listen to feedback from women about what makes them uncomfortable, and respond to such feedback with anger, they would probably do better with inanimate objects than with women with minds and feelings of their own. I think she’s probably right on that point. People who don’t respect the boundaries of others are generally speaking terrible people to be romantically involved with. (That applies regardless of gender or sexual orientation.)

“I thought I would just address the one big question, the one I keep seeing over and over and over and over again, which is something along these lines: ‘I’m a man and I don’t see the problem in cornering a woman in an elevator and inviting her back to my room despite the fact that she said she’s tired and going to bed, and despite the fact that she said she didn’t want to be hit on, and despite the fact that I’ve never talked to her before. I don’t see a problem with this situation. So if you say I can’t do that then how can I possibly get laid?’

And the answer to that is that you probably can’t. You probably can’t get laid. Because I think most normal people see that situation and they realize ‘oh, yeah, that’s not an appropriate time to ask a woman to come back to my hotel room.’ And those of you that didn’t see that right away, there’s another subset of normal people who said ‘Oh, well it didn’t occur to me that that would be seen as creepy or weird or undesirable, so thank you for pointing it out. I will not do that in the future.

So, you know, most normal people get that, and they can then go forward and flirt with members of the opposite sex in a normal manner that may or may not result in sex for them. But those of you that are asking that question obviously can’t do that. So I would recommend that you look at other ways to maybe get your rocks off. Like, maybe one of those dolls? They sell those, those… they’re kind of expensive, I think? I’ve never priced one myself but I’ve seen a documentary on it. And they’re really… they’re lifelike, but uh, they’re mouths are only used for sucking, you know. So no worries about them very calmly giving you advice on how to approach a woman or how not to approach a woman. You don’t have to worry about that. They would pretty much just lay there and you can have sex with them.”

And then she goes on to talk about fleshlights and watermelons, etc, essentially the same thing. So, no talk of marrying that I see, and it seems she lays out quite plainly that it’s a specific subset of people, those insisting that she has nothing to complain about and that she’s being unreasonable, that she’s talking to. And that most people that heard and responded to her were quite reasonable on the issue.

Also, Thomas, that is not at all analogous. It would be analogous had Watson said elevator guy was ugly or unkept, etc. She never said anything of the sort. In fact, it was the opponents that made up that whole thing, claiming she only cared because the guy was ugly. She is making a specific response to people saying that her advice, a throwaway line about being made to feel uncomfortable, is unreasonable, and that she had absolutely no right to say or care about. “I don’t see the problem in cornering a woman in an elevator and inviting her back to my room despite the fact that she said she’s tired and going to bed, and despite the fact that she said she didn’t want to be hit on, and despite the fact that I’ve never talked to her before. I don’t see a problem with this situation.” That is who she is talking about. And if your outlook on life is that women who tell you these things are wrong and unreasonable, then that’s not going to get you far in dating.

She is not saying anything about personal appearance (which she, for the most part, couldn’t know) or sexual inclination (well, besides assuming she’s talking to people who are into women, because otherwise they wouldn’t care), which you are when you say “ugly spinsters or frustrated lesbians”. She is responding to a specific, displayed characteristic which is, quite directly, going to impact you. Again, if you refuse to listen a woman about how she feels, you’re not going to get far with women, are you?

And she even gets more specific later: 4:56: “You know i only throw this out there because a lot of you have been asking me for sex advice. You know, the point of me uploading the video previously wasn’t necessarily to give sex advice, but to give advice on how we as a community might go about making our community a more inviting one to women, you know. But a lot of you just have no interest in that, you just wanted the sex advice. So there it is, my advice to you is to buy one of those really expensive dolls and fuck that. So I hope that helps. Thank you again to everyone whose commented. I haven’t really read any of them in the past few weeks. But hey, keep it up. You really seem to enjoy it. Thanks!”

I do not believe you . Slutwalk was enacted in Canada because a Male Canadian Police made an offensive comment to females how they dress. “Yes means Yes It does not mean women gaining consent from men, Exolain?

You don’t believe women want sex? Is that what you’re saying, that you do not believe women can want sex and ask men to have sex with them, thus “gaining their consent”?

Actually, I did just exactly quote her. And sarcasm makes things not make sense? I linked the video and gave the exact timestamp should anyone choose to watch the video and decide for themselves if she said anything different then what I quoted. It’s not like I’m trying to misrepresent her. She said quite specifically who she was talking to, and what she was talking about. You’re the one trying to compare what she said to calling people ugly and homosexual.

Yes, it was directed at redlocker, but you said anybody. I responded to that.

“She uses sarcasm in the whole statement. It makes no sense to understand her literally.”

Right there, Thomas. You are saying her statements lose all literal meaning the second she becomes sarcastic.

“Well, then it must be confirmation bias.”

K. But one person here is linking to and talking about the exact statements, or talking about what she said. You are trying to spin that into mockery of an entire class of men, despite the fact that she is quite specific in who she’s talking to, and why she says what she says. If that’s confirmation bias, so be it.

Can they be misused? Yes, but the problem isn’t the device, it’s dishonest arguments being supported with the devices.

Sort of like you’re doing here.

You seem to use honest/dishonest like correct/incorrect. Or maybe more like agrees with me/ disagrees with me. If your axiomatic assumption is that only feminist’s (your) arguments are honest then it makes no sense to have any discussion.

Or maybe you are suggesting that I’m arguing in bad faith. Well, I can assure you I’m not. You are obviously entitled to *your* opinion that I’m wrong, but your constant accusation of dishonesty is getting old.

Thomas: We, as in the non-singular number of people here who are actively disagreeing with you.

As I am not writing an editorial, I am not using the editorial we. As I am not a monarch I am not using the Royal We.

If people were less willing to argue in bad faith, and with dishonest practice, I’d not need to point it out, in much the same way that Spearhafoc wouldn’t need to point out people’s consistent abuse of grammar. That you find it tiresome bothers me not at all. I probably find it more tiresome to read people engaging in falsity than you find it to read; though I suspect your willingness to accept dishonest arguments which agree with you colors your opinions.

The suggestion that I am using it as a sort of argument from authority, (or perhaps obfuscation) when I disagree with someone is weak. There have been any number of people with whom I have expressed plain disagreement (e.g. MRAL, caseymordred, Annit) who didn’t sink to dishonesty, and so were not accused of it.

As to your good faith, care to defend your argumentative style, or just pretend that sarcasm is somehow invalidating of an argument. Because that’s what’s dishonest. esp. as you use it yourself. It’s either a double standard you are keeping (i.e. dishonesty in argument), or hypocrisy (dishonesty in representation).

I am not, though the distinction may be subtle, calling you a liar. I am saying you are not presenting a truthful statement of your position.

There’s somewhat of a chicken and egg thing: do people in misogynist MRA spaces think of feminist sites as so hostile to men because they’re projecting their own hostility, or do they exhibit so much hostility because they perceive/believe/assume feminist sites are hostile toward men and take that as license to be hostile towards women?

@Samuel:

Many mgtow guys are not like that. They are sad and angry at women

At Holly, and my sister, and Amanda Marcotte, and Jessica Valenti, and Pam Geller, and Phyllis Schlafly, and Sarah Palin, and Gloria Steinem? At the same time? For the same reason?

@Holly:

I actually heard a feminist say that she thinks a lot of.en who support feminists and bash mra’s are actually trying to be White Knights and get laid. What do you think?
I don’t think she was actually a feminist. That’s an MRA line because they can’t conceive of any other reason to be a decent person.

You can see the sentiment expressed in the name of feminism every time xkcd does something like this or this. “Oh, Randall’s just trying to get a cookie for how special he is, blah blah.”

@Samuel:

Snowy,I have heard of a feminist from one of the slut walk blogs that said she disagreed with other feminists that are anti porn and anti lusting at women.

So it’s not actual feminists who have mocked you for being celibate, it’s rumors of a feminist somewhere.

Also, if you think it’s feminists who are making you so scared of your own sexual shadow that you turn away whenever someone might arouse your lust, no wonder you have a problem with feminism. I don’t know what to tell you except, that’s all you, Zardoz.

@Thomas, passim:
I suppose if, as demonstrated on a different thread, the fact that an article was published in Penthouse is not adequate proof that the article was published in Penthouse, quoting Watson as evidence of what Watson said can be “argument from authority.”

Some feminists organize a “slut walk” where one of the objectives is that a woman can dress any way she wants and be free and “Yes means yes, no means no”. I just think the “slut walk” can be degrading to women.

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.